My Abiogenesis Challenge

[muichimotsu]

So is that why you're here? Because you like surrounding yourself with anti- science and misinformation?

I think it's far more likely that they are challenging those ideas to actually enrich people's perspectives, to make them recognize flaws and make them better as a result of being able to think more critically

 

[SelfSim]

So is that why you're here? Because you like surrounding yourself with anti- science and misinformation?

Often, in the heat of a battle, things become crystal clear. Insights happen, which then present whole new perspectives and deeper understandings.
This is frequently the unacknowledged benefit produced by the real scientific viewpoints presented here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because "bring forth" merely means teem or swarm with? Even in Genesis 2, God forms man from the dust, but man doesn't become a living being until God breathes into him the breath of life.

Anyway, that's my best shot.

I think that's where jacks is coming from in his post; which is a good point.

Since God created Adam, for example, from the dust of the ground, then performed an act of "abiogenesis" by breathing life into him.

Ditto for Eve.

So it really depends on how you look at it.

 

[SelfSim]

Since God created Adam, for example, from the dust of the ground, then performed an act of "abiogenesis" by breathing life into him.

Ditto for Eve.

So 'the act' (or process) there, is the same 'act' (or process) in both cases, then?

Believing God performed that 'act' is just a matter of believing that.
Believing science's Abiogenesis hypotheses, is also just a matter of believing that.

Neither belief there, makes any impact whatsoever, on either the 'act', or the 'process', resulting in life.

 

[muichimotsu]

I think that's where jacks is coming from in his post; which is a good point.

Since God created Adam, for example, from the dust of the ground, then performed an act of "abiogenesis" by breathing life into him.

Ditto for Eve.

So it really depends on how you look at it.

I may not be a scientist, but Adam's rib is not non-life, unlike the dust, so there'd only be one instance, unless we go with EVERY instance of God making the animals, which I don't think is really explained what they're made from. Even the Djinn in Islam are at least explained to have been made from smokeless fire.

Here, it might as well be that Family Guy joke with Jeannie from I Dream Of Jeannie just doing her nod and the animals just popping into existence (along with other things, because parody)

 

[muichimotsu]

So 'the act' (or process) there, is the same 'act' (or process) in both cases, then?

Believing God performed that 'act' is just a matter of believing that.
Believing science's Abiogenesis hypotheses, is also just a matter of believing that.

Neither belief there, makes any impact whatsoever, on either the 'act', or the 'process', resulting in life.

Pretty sure the building blocks that can form into life are something we understand and can be studied in terms of their potential for combining and enzymes that could lead to such a development.

Whereas God is merely an object of faith and unfalsifiable by nature, otherwise it would be subject to the same scientific analysis we put to RNA, unicellular organisms, etc, all the stuff that goes into the hypothesis and models for abiogenesis as the most likely explanation given a lack of compelling evidence for even something like aliens. Heck, I'd buy panspermia before creationism, even the Raelian form.

 

[AV1611VET]

So 'the act' (or process) there, is the same 'act' (or process) in both cases, then?

No.

That's like saying a tornado formed by the same process that another formed when God ordered it to form.

One is a natural process, the other is a divine process.

 

[AV1611VET]

I may not be a scientist, but Adam's rib is not non-life, unlike the dust,

Good point.

... so there'd only be one instance, unless we go with EVERY instance of God making the animals,

Don't forget the plants, the fish, the birds, the bees, and everything else.

Each "kind" would have its own instance of abiogenesis -- or not.

Depends on how you look at it.

Here, it might as well be that Family Guy joke with Jeannie from I Dream Of Jeannie just doing her nod and the animals just popping into existence (along with other things, because parody)

More like God speaking and nature obeying.

 

[Yttrium]

How many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

One.

 

[ottawak]

No.

That's like saying a tornado formed by the same process that another formed when God ordered it to form.

One is a natural process, the other is a divine process.

And it can't be both at once, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

And it can't be both at once, of course.

If conditions aren't right for a tornado, no, it wouldn't be both at once.

If conditions were right for a tornado, why would God order it?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Peter Gabriel was Genesis.
Phil Collins will never be Genesis.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

How many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

One. A human created God from nothing, the rest is just a story.

 

[SelfSim]

One is a natural process, the other is a divine process.

Those are the respective explanations/conclusions/inferences. I'm suggesting starting from the other end and keep the explanations out of it for a moment.

The observations of males/females, humans, plants, fish, birds, bees, etc, are what we have to work with. Presumably we all agree upon those observations being real(?) Both sides seem to agree that whatever process resulted in these living things, was a singular process, yes? (We can put aside splitting that process into linked sub-processes for a moment also).

Call it process 'X'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Call it process 'X'.

Okay.

Play your card.

 

[SelfSim]

Okay.

Well, so you agree there is a singular process.

But wait! Something's amiss because you said

Actually I'm looking for "zero" ...

What gives there then?

 

[muichimotsu]

Good point.Don't forget the plants, the fish, the birds, the bees, and everything else.

Each "kind" would have its own instance of abiogenesis -- or not.

Depends on how you look at it.More like God speaking and nature obeying.

Except kind is not really substantiated and arguably just leads to more needless pedantry to explain things in regards to speciation that you don't want to admit or consider might be valid. And all this for what: to justify the idea of a creator you'd fully admit cannot be scientifically studied remotely, so it's not even in the realm, it's pseudoscience.

I didn't forget, I was lumping them together because it's distinct in terms of an organic group versus things that are inorganic in nature, like planets or the stars.

Yeah, that's totally still not the equivalent of magic from a genie, just escalated to a category that's considered sacrosanct. Except not everyone's buying the narrative

 

[Kylie]

How many acts of abiogenesis were performed in Genesis 1?

Define 'abiogenesis' and 'acts'.

I'll pass.

If you won't/can't provide definitions for these terms, then any answer at all will be satisfactory. So I can answer "Infinity" or "Tuesday" or "Purple," and they all give the same amount of information.

 

[jacks]

If you won't/can't provide definitions for these terms, then any answer at all will be satisfactory. So I can answer "Infinity" or "Tuesday" or "Purple," and they all give the same amount of information.

Infinity maybe, purple possibly, but Tuesday is definitely wrong...

 

[AV1611VET]

Infinity maybe, purple possibly, but Tuesday is definitely wrong...

Especially if they're playing Fizzbin!